Game Animal Council Bill

The Local Government and Environment Committee spent many hours investigating and discussing the Game Animal Council Bill. There has been huge interest in this topic and very active discussions since about 2005. The game animal panel hearing process led by Margaret Austin dealt with over 4,000 submissions. We too heard a significant number of submissions.

The key to this bill is that the Game Animal Council can manage herds of special interest for the purpose of recreational hunting, but only—only—where this activity is compatible with the management of the public conservation land. We already have a highly successful model to imitate. This model is the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation. That foundation has for over 7 years now been managing the effects that deer have had on the Fiordland environment. It is managing them for both conservation and hunting excellence purposes. Because, as we have discussed, recreationalists often become the best conservationists, it is the hunters who have taken on the responsibility of managing and improving the environment where these animals live. The hunters are working actively and in partnership with the Department of Conservation, and they are focusing on pest control in the area. They have been doing a lot of work on predators such as stoats and rats, and they have installed and maintain over 70 kilometres of tracks right throughout this area. This really has improved the environment for flora and fauna, and particularly for some of our endangered birds and bats. They have also taken the pressure off the environment by culling non - wapiti-type deer. This is, of course, for conservation reasons, but it is also to improve the quality of the wapiti stock. Finally, just to add a little thrill to their events, they have supported a project to reintroduce the blue duck into the area, and that has been very successful and appreciated by all.

So this area that is cared for by the hunters and the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation is a shining example of better conservation outcomes and a better hunting experience. That is why we support this bill. It will encourage more New Zealanders to get out and enjoy our natural environment. It will encourage more New Zealanders to engage in conservation activity. It will help us manage our game animals—that is, the tahr, the chamois, the deer, and the pigs—more effectively, and it will provide for better hunting opportunities.

Of course, the fishing community has Fish and Game, and now, after today, the hunting fraternity will have the Game Animal Council. I look forward to seeing that council up and running and adding value to both our conservation estate and the recreational hunting community. I commend this bill to the House.

Labour, unfortunately, will not be supporting this piece of legislation, the Game Animal Council Bill. It really is unfortunate, because I think this was a lost opportunity. I think that before the bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee, there was a lot of consternation around the very principle of what we were doing and the fact that it was quite different from what the advisory committee, which had been set up under the Labour Government via our agreement with the Hon Peter Dunne and United Future, had suggested.

Actually, when we got to the select committee, what we found was there was an awful lot of common ground and a real desire to do something about those tensions that exist between the protection of the conservation estate, pest management, and the interests of recreational hunters. There was general agreement that in many cases those interests actually aligned, whereas people might think that they conflicted. It was a real opportunity to do something that would build on the relationships that already existed, highlight where relationships did not exist, and provide an opportunity to start building those relationships.

What we found out through the select committee process and the submissions was that around the country this is already happening in some places very, very well and the Department of Conservation is working extremely well with local recreational hunting interests. Decisions have been made and relationships put in place that mean that we are getting what the select committee wants, which is a win-win for both sides. But, equally, there are other parts of the country where that relationship is very bad, where the relationships have broken down, and where the Department of Conservation and the local hunting interests are not working well together. What was clear was that it would have been perfectly possible within existing laws to actually build on both those experiences—the very bad experiences and the very positive experiences—and come up with something that I think most parties, if not all parties, in the House would have been able to support.

Certainly, if you read the regulatory impact statement on this piece of legislation and if you read the advice that came from both Treasury and the Department of Conservation, this was their least favoured option. This was the option that they thought would have the highest regulatory burden and the most cost. They said that stand-alone legislation was not the way to go when, under existing legislation, you could achieve exactly the same outcomes. So what the Minister of Conservation is currently already able to do under the Wild Animal Control Act is to set up committees of special interest. So we could have taken that route. But we certainly took on board the concern of the recreational hunting community—that the problem with that was that as easily as a Minister could establish one of these boards, the Minister could then disestablish it. We accepted that this is something that needed to be far more permanent than that.

But the other option that was available—I guess we would see it as the middle-ground option—was that under the Wild Animal Control Act, there could have been an amendment to put this committee into place and could have given it the kinds of functions that this bill seeks to impart on the Game Animal Council, but, in doing so, not undermine the role of the Department of Conservation and the Minister of Conservation.

I very much appreciate the lofty goal of devolution of a number of these functions from the Department of Conservation down to other groups where we can get a win-win for everyone involved, but I simply just do not think we are there yet. I think that the member who is effectively responsible for this bill, the Hon Peter Dunne, made a very correct statement in his second reading speech, which was that the recreational hunting community is not very well organised at the moment, and this bill does seek to address that. But it is a bit of a chicken and an egg thing. We are passing on and devolving an awful lot of responsibility to a sector that has yet, I think, to develop to a point where we can be confident that especially in terms of pest management—and that is incredibly important for all New Zealanders, not just for those who care about that Department of Conservation estate—the standards there are going to continue to be met.

One of the concerns, of course, that was raised by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was around the issue of 1080 and ensuring that the Game Animal Council was not able, for example, to stop the use of 1080 where it is being used for pest control simply because it might also impact on one of the herds of national significance. So it is disappointing.

I am very pleased, though, that there is a 3-year review on this bill. I think that is an important part that does allay some concern. In 3 years’ time we can see where we are at and see whether this is still the appropriate vehicle to address the very real issues that are being addressed in this bill around managing those tensions between the Department of Conservation, pest management, and the rights of recreational hunters.

I keep saying “recreational hunters” because up until a few hours ago we were really talking only about recreational hunters. A major concern for us has been the vote that was taken in the Committee stage of this bill today to remove the word “recreational” wherever it appears in the bill. That is a very big shift from what we were discussing at the select committee. It very much changes the entire flavour of what we are trying to do here. There is a difference, we believe, between the recreational hunting interests—the people who go out, who have done it their whole lives, and who learnt from their grandad, from their dad, and maybe from their grandmother and their mother as well, that hunting is a real part of the culture, a real part of that community—and the people who go out and make a lot of money out of shooting at animals from helicopters.

For us that was an important distinction. We were doing something that was going to benefit that recreational hunting community, because we recognised that many of them also do it out of a love of the land, do it out of a love of just getting out there amongst nature. They have no interest beyond just enjoying what they have always done and wanting to see that when the Department of Conservation is engaging in pest management plans, it is not at the same time eradicating the species that they enjoy going out and hunting—that it can get some kind of species management in there that allows both to coexist. So that is what we wanted, and those were the people we wanted to benefit from that.

But, unfortunately, we are now including a category of people who are benefiting from what we are doing here but who also make money off what they do and who are more the big end of town, I guess, when it comes to the hunting sector, than the people whom we believed we were primarily dealing with at the select committee. I know that we were told, in trying to explain why clause 16 was changed, that it was to be more inclusive, to extend the benefits of it beyond just recreational hunters, but that was not the mandate we were given at the select committee, and that was not the overarching framework of what we were told we were doing. What we were told we were doing was dealing with the everyday hunters who go out there and do it because they love it and it is part of their lifestyle. They are doing it because they love being out amongst nature, not because they are making money out of it or having tourists come in and do trophy hunting.

So now this bill extends to all those other people. I think that that is a real shame, because everything I said before about how close I thought we were to actually getting something that everyone could get on board with is undermined. Actually, what the amendment also does is it removes any mention of recreational hunters from the legislation. Had this amendment gone to the select committee—and I do not know why it was not raised at the select committee, except that I acknowledge that the select committee was about 400 years ago, but that is all right—we could have discussed, for example, mentioning recreational hunters. Including recreational hunters would ensure that the interests of recreational hunters, who were the people whom we believed we were passing this legislation for, will not be lost against the bigger, more wealthy voice of other hunting interests.

When we were going through this bill, officials made it quite clear to us that this bill was not being passed for the other hunting interests; it was being passed for the recreational hunters. So to come to the Committee stage and suddenly have all reference to recreational hunters removed from the bill was unexpected, to say the least, and unfortunate, I think. I am sure that other members will get up and say that it will make no difference, and it may be that in 3 years’ time, when we do the review, that that is the case, but it should have gone to the select committee so we could have actually teased that out, rather than it being changed under urgency. I appreciate that there are time frames that need to be met so that we do not breach them, but then why was this bill not progressed earlier? Why was this bill not progressed earlier in the year so we did not have to do that under urgency and we did not have to have Supplementary Order Paper 395 dropped on us at the last minute, when we really do not fully appreciate exactly what it might do?

So we will not be supporting this bill. That is a shame because I do think we were very close to finding something workable that everyone could get on board with. But I do congratulate the Hon Peter Dunne on the time and effort he has put into passing this piece of legislation after what must be coming up to nearly a decade now. That is a long period of time, so I do acknowledge that this is, I am sure, a very happy day for the Hon Peter Dunne. I am just sorry that we could not get on board with it.

Thank you to the member who has just resumed her seat, Moana Mackey. I want to just acknowledge at the beginning of my contribution that this debate has been, I think, on the whole a very constructive one. There have been points of disagreement, but, largely, they have been handled in a constructive way, and I acknowledge that from all members. As the member intimated, for me this is the end of a fairly long journey. It began before the 2005 election. In the 2005 confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Government, United Future secured the establishment of the game animal review panel, which was chaired by the Hon Margaret Austin and ended up recommending the establishment of the Game Animal Council. When the National Party came to power in 2008, we included in our confidence and supply agreement the provision to establish a special committee to pick up those recommendations and develop the council. In our 2011 agreement, this legislation was concluded. So to finally be at the point where the bill is about to receive its third reading is the end of a remarkably long journey.

A number of people have been involved along the way, and I want to acknowledge immediately the worth of their contributions. I have already mentioned the Hon Margaret Austin, who has been steadfast. I know from a message received from her this morning that she is extremely excited that her work is finally coming to its conclusion today. I want to acknowledge the work of Garry Ottmann and the members of the Game Animal Council Establishment Committee for a job extremely well done over a long period of time. I want to acknowledge the officials, whose hearts have not always been in this bill but who have worked constructively to make sure that it was the best it could be, and the Local Government and Environment Committee for the consideration that it gave, as well.

But there is one unsung hero of this bill whom I want to mention. His name is Hayden Cox. He was my ministerial assistant for a number of years, and he worked on this piece of legislation as a labour of love for a very long time. I know that Hayden will be an extremely happy young man today to see that his work, his dream, his perseverance, and his sheer determination have paid off in the passage of this bill. He will be joined, in that pantheon of people to be acknowledged, by Tim McCarthy and Bill O’Leary of the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association, and, in an earlier time, Alec McIver, and a number of other recreational interests around New Zealand. This is very much their day.

I want to deal with one point that dominated the Committee of the whole House’s consideration of the bill, and that, I think, is largely—with the greatest of respect to members opposite—a red herring. That is the matter that the previous speaker was referring to about the expansion of the ambit of the council by way of Supplementary Order Paper 395, which was passed by the Committee of the whole House. Let me repeat what I said at that point: when this bill was introduced, for reason of issues related to the protection of property rights it related only to the conservation estate, and, obviously, by definition, that limited its scope to apply only to recreational hunters, as they are the major users of the conservation estate in that regard. Once the bill had passed through the select committee, there were strong representations made by a number of other groups with interests in land management, tourism, and hunting in its broader forms that they should now be brought under the ambit of this legislation, not the least reason for which was the fact that the levy mechanism placed on trophies that the bill introduces would affect them, as well.

As the Associate Minister of Conversation at the time, I received those submissions, and I must confess to the House that I was at first a little sceptical. It did sound a little bit like johnny-come-latelys once the bill had been passed. I said to them: “If you come back to me with a document signed by all of the people who you claim support the inclusion of a wider definition, I will be prepared to take the matter forward.” They did, and the Supplementary Order Paper reflects that. I do not see that as sinister. I do not see that as changing the scope of the bill. In fact, it broadens it. It makes it a much more inclusive platform. It makes the council, I think, a much more credible body. I note, and I said this during the Committee of the whole House, that Mr Ottmann has given a message this morning that the changes proposed are utterly consistent with the recommendations of the establishment committee. If one looks at the provisions of the bill regarding the membership of the council, there is a specific statement there about recreational hunting. I do not accept, although I understand why it has been made, the criticism that we heard during the Committee of the whole House.

One other point that has aroused some attention—and if I hear the Green Party correctly, it has mainly been their point—is that the hitherto overarching role of the Department of Conservation in the management in this area is being diminished by the establishment of this council, which will have its own responsibilities. I respect that we have a difference of opinion on this. I actually think that devolution is a good thing, because you will have more stakeholders involved in the decision-making process, greater commitment, and the value that they espouse—of wanting to conserve a resource so that they can use the resource—can be given greater effect through this proposition.

I am very happy today. I am very pleased to see this council come to fruition. I have great confidence in the future that lies ahead. I suspect, actually, from the tone of some of the debate opposite, that members opposite are also quietly confident that this council will be successful. It is an important day for the hunting sector in New Zealand—recreational hunters, as well as other hunters. It is an important day for all of those who value our outdoor heritage, and their ability to have a say in its management and their ability to contribute to future policy developments. Congratulations to all who were involved in bringing the bill to this stage. I am very happy to let the debate proceed and for the vote to take place in due course.

I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Game Animal Council Bill. When this bill was introduced, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society described it as a political trophy awarded to Peter Dunne for his loyalty to the Government. It is certainly a very fine trophy. If it were a deer head, it would have a lot of points on the antlers. It has been a very controversial bill. There were more than 600 submissions on it, and it was opposed by the major conservation and environmental groups, conservation agencies, the New Zealand Conservation Authority, a lot of the conservation boards, regional councils, and the Auckland Council.

We are getting to the final stages. We in the Green Party still believe that the Game Animal Council is being established for all the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. As a stand-alone council that is promoting the interests of hunting, it is putting that recreation in a very privileged position in relation to all other users of conservation land. Trampers, mountain bikers, kayakers, and other users do not have their own special legislation that gives them special access to the Minister of Conservation and gives them Government funding and the ability to recommend that fees be set. Essentially, this bill is establishing a glorified lobby group for hunters, which is going to be funded by the Crown and by Kiwi hunters.

One of the tragedies of the bill is that it overlooks the opportunity provided by conservation boards, which are a diverse group of iwi representatives, recreational representatives, farmers, hunters, conservationists, and others who advise the department. They provide collective advice from a range of different points of view. We heard in the Local Government and Environment Committee how boards like the Tongariro/Taupō Conservation Board are working with hunters to give them more influence in the management of conservation land. Conservation boards are an integrating body. The Game Animal Council as a stand-alone one is likely to exacerbate the conflict between conservation values and hunting.

We do not think the bill is needed, because it, essentially, duplicates the work of some other agencies. In the firearms and hunting safety areas it is duplicating the work of the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association and the Mountain Safety Council. We do not think it is needed, because we already have recreational hunting areas under the Wild Animal Control Act, and they cover nearly 190,000 hectares of New Zealand. We already have liaison committees, such as the tahr one, under the tahr control plan. We already have a number of successful examples, from the hunters’ perspective, of where herds that they see as being nationally significant are managed on conservation land, with input from hunters.

Both Maggie Barry and Nicky Wagner talked about the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation and its work in Fiordland. Wapiti in Fiordland National Park are managed by the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation and the Department of Conservation through provisions in the Fiordland National Park Management Plan, which recognises both the interests of hunters and biodiversity values. Similarly, the white-tailed deer population on Rakiura / Stewart Island is very popular with hunters. It is managed under the provisions of the Rakiura National Park Management Plan, but in consultation with hunters. In both these areas, hunting management operates well and to the satisfaction of the hunters concerned, as many of the submitters made clear in their submissions to the select committee, so we do not need this bill.

As the Southland Conservation Board noted in its submission—and it has obviously had experience with both wapiti management and white-tailed deer management—the bill risks undermining the existing goodwill that has built up between the Department of Conservation and hunters, and it could well overwhelm these local initiatives where you have got a centralised agency like the Game Animal Council being established, and because of our concern that that will primarily promote the interests of trophy hunters and commercial guides, rather than the average recreational hunter. That is potentially likely to happen because we have got an 11-member council that has got to fund its activities, and it is going to be very keen to supplement its income that it gets from the export of trophies, so it will want to collect fees. If it is going to be collecting fees, there is nothing in the bill that requires those fees to be set at a reasonable level.

But our primary reason for opposing the bill is that it cuts right across the Department of Conservation’s statutory responsibilities to protect and preserve our indigenous plants and wildlife and the landscapes they inhabit. The Hon Mr Dunne was saying that that is just our concern. It was a concern that came through in a range of submissions, including from organisations like the Auckland Council. It is a real concern because of the significant powers that the bill gives to the Game Animal Council in relation to the management of herds of special interest. Even this term turns pest animals such as deer, tahr, and feral pigs—problem animals—into being seen as an asset. It is very unlikely that the Game Animal Council, when it is managing these herds, will want to permanently reduce their numbers, contract their range, or eradicate them. Of course, that undermines a strong commitment to the management of these species as pests, because of their browsing impacts on indigenous vegetation and because of their contribution to soil erosion on high country lands. So the council’s desire to maximise hunting opportunities will cut across and conflict with the need to control and cull these browsers.

There is nothing in this bill about promoting and achieving better outcomes for tourism, for better pest control, for bovine TB management, or even for better results for conservation. That is why we have got this concern about the undermining of the Department of Conservation’s statutory purpose. As the Auckland Council said, the likely results of the bill will be far worse for conservation.

I was very disappointed in the Committee stage that the Government did not support Supplementary Order Paper 400 in my name to make national parks and other high status protected areas off limits to the establishment of herds of special interest, because there is a parallel provision to the one that was in the Supplementary Order Paper in the Wild Animal Control Act that prevents the establishment of recreational hunting areas in national parks. So why, if the Government believes and Mr Dunne believes that this bill would not undermine conservation values and would not undermine the protection of our indigenous biodiversity, did they not support a parallel provision that would have put national parks off limits to these herds of special interest?

Members from the National Party have said that this bill, in establishing the Game Animal Council, replicates or is similar to the Fish and Game Council. We would point out that the management of Canada geese was taken away from Fish and Game because it was seen as having a conflict in managing Canada geese for hunting, and also because of concern that farmers had with an increase in Canada geese numbers and their browsing impacts on farmland. Fish and Game no longer manages a species where it has got that conflict of interest. Similarly, here you will have the Game Animal Council managing species that have impacts as pests, so that is an internal tension that is not good for biodiversity.

The final reason we are opposing it is still those changes in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 395 that take out the reference to recreational hunting as a management purpose for the herds of special interest. That, we believe, will mean that the council will be dominated by an elite group of trophy hunters, safari park operators, and commercial guides, and we will not see the traditional Kiwi sport of hunting promoted.

I will take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Game Animal Council Bill. Sometimes I do wonder whether I am sitting in the same select committee, because some of the comments that have been made today—

💬 Maggie Barry: We do wonder too.

I am supporting you, Maggie Barry. Do not knock me—do not knock me. I do wonder, having gone to Christchurch and having been in a packed room in Christchurch with interests from all over the game animal sector—from recreational people to commercial people to people involved in all aspects of it—whether all the members here today who have spoken actually were at that particular hearing and did hear from the submitters, because, quite frankly, this does bring together all the people who have an involvement in big-game animals in this country.

I looked back today, just to reference that, on the website of the establishment committee—the Game Animal Council Establishment Committee. It says on there that back in 2007 a ministerial panel looked into future options for managing game animals and recommended the formation of a big-game hunting council, as it was originally intended. The establishment committee was formed, representing hunters and game animal managers. It was to have regard to the environmental effects of deer, tahr, chamois—or shammy—and wild pigs. It was to relate to the hunting, farming, and management of those animals, including recreational hunters, commercial hunters, farmers, and the public in general. Game animal numbers needed to be controlled, for conservation reasons.

That was the basic premise, back in 2007, of the ministerial panel recommending the establishment of that committee. Further, it was given terms of reference, and the main terms of reference were that the establishment committee would encourage participation in hunting and farming of deer, shammy, tahr, and wild pigs; it would coordinate hunting activities to reduce conflicts; it would establish agreed national standards for hunting activities; it would advocate for the interests of its membership to the Minister of Conservation and to the public generally; and it would advise the Minister on matters relating to the management of big-game animals in New Zealand. Those are pretty clear terms of reference for the establishment committee.

The establishment committee originally consisted of five representatives who represented recreational deer hunters, pig hunters, commercial deer hunters, guiding services to recreational hunters, and deer farming and safari park operators. Those were the original five. This Game Animal Council Establishment Committee then went on and spent the last 6-odd years—we are now in 2013—developing this through the whole process, with widespread consultation across New Zealand with all those involved and affected, including in the areas of conservation and with the Department of Conservation, environmentalists, Fish and Game New Zealand, and in all sorts of other areas.

As a result, the first bill, when it was first brought to this House, had various angles on it that New Zealand First initially had some difficulties with. We were quite happy when we saw that it was going to go to a select committee and be really, really, thrashed out. And it was. I was most impressed that as a result of the select committee process we really were able to get into it, get some much better outcomes from it, address many of the concerns, particularly the concerns that were coming out of some of the environmental and conservation areas regarding this, and address the concerns of the recreational hunters in tandem with the commercial hunters.

At the end of the day, it was very, very pleasing to be in the same room with so many of these people who were finally starting to see eye to eye with each other and to see the value and the scope that this Game Animal Council would finally have to cover the interests of all those people. As a result of that, it was recommended, of course, and agreed that the committee would end up with a membership of between nine and 11 members to ensure that there was much wider representation across all interested parties, and that it would have a chair who was capable of chairing it and who would have skills in the area of conflict of interest and be able to resolve issues and bring parties together. As a result, in this bill it does state that the chair will be required to have those skills to bring all the parties together.

It does concern me that there are members in this House today who say that recreational hunting has been left out and ignored. That is not the case—not the case at all. Quite clearly, the term “hunting” covers all aspects of hunting, whether it be recreational, whether it be commercial, whether it be guided services for recreational hunters, or whether it be the industry side of deer farming, wild deer recovery, and that sort of thing, which overlaps into our deer farming industry and the like.

I believe that at the end of the day we have achieved some good legislation here. It is significantly different from the original legislation that came in the House, but is the result, I believe, of a good process that saw over 600 submissions, a good process that heard very, very good oral submissions and very good representatives of so many sectors coming to the select committee and putting their views, which were taken on board by the members of Parliament—or at least taken on board by the members of Parliament who listened, but obviously not by some who did not listen. As a result of this, I think this legislation is a good piece of legislation now, and New Zealand First will be supporting it. We like the idea that it has a 3-year review period, so anything that, perhaps, has been missed, or where there could still be some fine-tuning, some tweaking, or some areas that may still be assisted with the result, within the 3 year period, we would like to see that occur. New Zealand First commends this bill to the House.

I rise to speak to the third reading of the Game Animal Council Bill. Thanks to that member who just sat down, Andrew Williams. He makes some excellent points on this occasion, and I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with him on many matters. I too have sat in on the Local Government and Environment Committee throughout this long and protracted process.

I would have to say, though, that some previous calls really dwelt on the disquiet, the lack of trust, and the dysfunctional relationships, and that is just the Opposition, although this is not a laughing matter. I guess that when it comes to looking at something like the Game Animal Council, we need to look at what it is at its core intent. The core function for the council is to reduce conflicts within the hunting sector and to raise awareness of the views of the hunting sector. The Minister of Conservation will appoint members from the public and from organisational nominations. There are a wide range of groups that will be represented on that nine and up to 11 member council.

People have expressed concerns—including the Green member Eugenie Sage who sat down recently—about conservation having been, really, not served well in this. I disagree. It is always valid to look at conservation and to ensure it has been enshrined properly, but I do not think it is justified in this case. I think conservation values will be protected because checks and balances will be put in place. As part of the herd management plans, for example, those herds of special interest will not result in adverse effects on conservation values. That is going to be monitored. Any management plans for those herds of special interest would have to have regard to the management of conservation. They would also have to include all of the existing policies, strategies, and plans made under conservation and biosecurity legislation. It is going to be reviewed every 3 years. It will be closely monitored, because these convictions are passionately held and very well thought through. So I do not think that there is anything that is present in this bill that will endanger our conservation values.

Be not afraid, this bill will deliver the right balance and protect our conservation values. I commend it to the House.

It is a pleasure to follow the member for the North Shore, Maggie Barry. I am sure that a lot of hunting goes on up there—I am not sure how many things they hit, though.

Of course, Labour supported, and was part of the initiation of, the Game Animal Council Bill in 2008, when good intent was in place to bring some coordination to the issue of recreational hunting and the tension between the hunting sector and conservationists across the country. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, there have been a number of pests introduced into this country. Some of them have ended up being partially productive. Some of them have been totally destructive. What we are dealing with here are the ones that fall in the middle. Some people see them as a great asset; others see them as a huge liability, particularly on the conservation estate.

There is a philosophical divide here that has, I guess, been behind many of the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I was not on the select committee, but I have heard from and spoken to many people from both sides. Labour supports the need for greater coordination between hunters and conservationists. It is sensible. These are people who are passionate about the outdoors, and I applaud them. Whether someone goes into the outdoors to walk, to mountain bike, or to go and hunt, they are all appreciating the spectacular natural values of our country and are prepared to step in and pay their taxes in support. So we must support whatever their interests are.

But it does come down to the reality—it has not been said here, other than by myself—that 1080 has been a big player in this whole tension. As the Department of Conservation, regional councils, and farmers have become more effective in the management of the possum population, they have spread 1080 far more systematically and accurately than they did in the early 1970s. But they have still done so, and there has been some by-kill—there is no doubt about that. So hunters who have been passionate about going out and finding the odd deer, chamois, or tahr—but deer in particular—have felt aggrieved that their prey has been reduced by this broadcasting of poison to kill possums.

There has been a view that the hunting fraternity should have more say in that management. Conservationists, on the other hand, would be happy to see them all go, and see the indigenous forest restored to its original value—actually, that is impossible because forests will evolve. So the tension between deer numbers and our indigenous forests has been at the heart of this debate, in my view. On top of that there has been a growing commercial hunting sector, which does make a lot of money. It brings a lot of export dollars into this country through people flying in, staying at high-value lodges, and spending a whole lot of money to go out and trophy hunt in our wonderful conservation estate and in the national parks, as we have seen. Managing that in an appropriate way is the objective of this whole exercise.

However, the bill has been tinkered with. Because of MMP and the deals that have effectively been made with the Hon Peter Dunne, one sector has kind of got some momentum, and that is the commercial hunting fraternity. It has been well represented. It has done a lot of good lobbying. Some might say that it has won the day. The concern with Supplementary Order Paper 395 from the Minister of Conservation, which removes the recreational component of hunting, is that it is a backwards step and the legislation will not deliver the outcome that everyone was looking for in 2008 when the process was initiated. So I believe that we will be back in this House in the very near future making changes to this legislation because we find that there are perhaps some imbalances.

In particular, I have had assurances from the hunting fraternity that they will in no way, through this new Game Animal Council, attempt to stop the utilisation of 1080 in the forest areas that are pretty hard to get to. I welcome that assurance, and I will be watching very closely for them committing to that. If we back away from the determination to knock bovine tuberculosis on the head, and to knock the possum population down to very low numbers, then we as a nation are exposed and at risk of a further big outbreak of bovine tuberculosis. No one wants that.

The speaker from the Green Party, Eugenie Sage, did raise an issue that we should be mindful of, and that is the issue of the control of Canadian geese, where, effectively, a management plan did not work. The number of geese did get out of control, to the point where there was a new approach needed to get on top of it. We hope that these faults and failings do not result from the passage of this bill. Labour does have concerns. We supported the bill going to the select committee. Changes have been made, as many will say, but we are not convinced that each and every one of them has been the right change.

The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 395, put forward at the last minute, does beg some questions. The “overriding considerations” is a term in the bill that I have gone through and read, and it basically says just about anything, really. That leaves the door open for the Minister to do what he or she should like. Regulations being made by the Minister have to take on board the purposes of the Wild Animal Control Act, of course, and overriding considerations. If you read through that—I am not going to read it in this House—it covers everything.

I am a bit concerned about handing to any Minister some open right to make, I guess, management plans for some wild animals. We have a spectacular conservation estate. We do need to protect it. We need to be mindful of a squeeze, under this Government, on the Department of Conservation that has meant it is looking for more partnerships on a commercial basis. In this particular area it may very well lead to herds of tahr or chamois that are managed for very wealthy people who might pay big fees to their hosts, and then on to the Department of Conservation.

If that is indeed what the Government expects, then it should be upfront about that, because that will limit the ability of ordinary New Zealanders like the member over the other side there, Mr Roy, from putting a gun on his back and going out and shooting tahr or chamois or anything that moves, in fact. If we had a few more Eric Roys, I am sure we would have far lower numbers of deer and chamois and tahr. The fact is that he spends too much time in the House here, I guess, to do that.

Can I say in all seriousness that Labour would have liked to support a bill that did achieve a fine balance between recreational, commercial, and conservation interests in hunting. We accept that we have these exotic animals in our indigenous forests. They do have an impact. We need to keep the numbers low. We need to seize the opportunities for commercial exploitation where possible, but not at the expense of conservation and not at the expense of what is a reasonable expectation for New Zealand hunters to go out in the bush and to find something that they can shoot at and bring home for tea.

It is unfortunate that we cannot do that. I would have liked to speak in support of this piece of legislation, but the changes were not good enough and the protections were not good enough. I just hope that we do get a positive outcome for conservation and for hunting from this.

I want to make the point in this third reading of the Game Animal Council Bill that hunting and conservation are not mutually exclusive. I would like to make the point that many hunters take a keen interest in maintaining and protecting the environment, and I look forward to the contribution by my colleague here, Eric Roy, who represents that very cohort of hunters in New Zealand. Hunting is a hugely popular recreational activity in New Zealand, and, as a result, it brings with it competing interests and concerns on the best way to manage recreational and guided trophy hunting interests for the hunting of big game animals. So this bill will give hunters a greater say in their sport while also providing the Minister of Conservation with a valuable stream of advice regarding the recreational and guided trophy hunting of tahr, shammy, deer, and wild pigs, and also with a keen eye on the impact on the environment. It is a good bill and I commend it to the House.

I am just going to take the 5 minutes I have because I understand that this is a split call with the Green Party, so I have only 5 minutes. I want to recap a couple of points I have made during the course of this debate on the Game Animal Council Bill. First of all, I want to respond to Eric Roy’s contribution earlier in the debate in the Committee stage, which I thought was a very good contribution. In fact, he gave a much more competent set of answers to the questions I had raised earlier than the Hon Peter Dunne was able to give. One of the things that did puzzle me in Eric Roy’s contribution was his talk about expiry dates and dates that made this a bill, of necessity, to be brought back to this House at this point in urgency. One of the points that he made was to do with commercial contracts that were going to be renewed in January of next year, as I understand it. I listened to that very carefully, because I do not know how long those commercial contracts last, whether they are a season or a year—

💬 Eric Roy: Selling safaris.

—oh, OK, thank you—and whether or not the same condition could have applied last January or the January before. Thank you, Mr Roy. For the benefit of those who cannot see him, he is confirming that that is not in fact the case. So that still remains a good point. However, I do want to go back to one of the points I made that was about the need for urgency. I do think that there is more politics than practicality about the urgency of this bill, the Game Animal Council Bill. We began the work in 2008. We would not probably—I do not think; who knows—have arrived at the same solution that this Government has. What we have in this Game Animal Council Bill is the maximum impact that can be applied to this situation. In other words, it gets a legislative cover of its own. It gets a bill of its own. That is going to cost money. Setting up the council as an independent statutory body is going to cost money. That did not need to happen.

Secondly, it is going to exacerbate the tensions that exist between hunting groups and also between those groups and the Department of Conservation. Everybody needs to be working together on this issue, and this is not going to help. This seems to me like a typical Nick Smith approach. It is the absolute bull-at-a-gate approach that gets the maximum nuclear option on the table. Thank goodness we do not have nuclear power or nuclear arms in this country. Thank goodness the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Nick Smith, is not in charge of them. This is a kind of excessive response to the things that were needed. It could have been done by amending the Wild Animal Control Act. The Minister could simply have put an advisory committee into that legislation, which would have required a legislative change but not a whole bill of its own and not a Game Animal Council of its own, with its own statutory authority and all of the complications and all of the expense that that entails.

I think this is an unnecessary response, and it is for that reason that the Labour Party is not going to support this bill. It could have been done differently. It could have been done more effectively. It could have been done in a way that enhances the relationships in this sector and that does not exacerbate the tensions. That is an opportunity lost. Thank you.

In my second reading speech on this bill, the Game Animal Council Bill, I reflected on my time, over a couple of terms, on the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board. I want to reflect some more on that, because I well remember a briefing given to the New Zealand Conservation Authority about the drivers for the dispersion of deer in New Zealand. It turns out that the main way in which deer move from place to place in New Zealand is that they are deliberately introduced into new areas. What that means, actually, in relation to this bill is that there is a fundamental conflict of interests between those who see animals like deer as assets to be managed and those who see them as pests.

Bluntly, the question facing New Zealand is: do we want to see more of these animals or do we want to see fewer of them? We have a great example from the so-called tahr control plan, where numbers, which in the early 1980s were around 3,000 tahr, have been, in fact, managed up, as the interest of hunters has been more reflected, to around 10,000 now. So one of the major risks of this bill, and one of the major risks of the confusion that it introduces about the responsibility for the management of particular areas of land, and the conflict between the objectives of the Game Animal Council and the Department of Conservation, is that we will see an expansion of the feral range of some of these pest animals.

It is possible to strike a balance, I am sure. I am not a hunter but I am a pretty regular back country user. I am a tramper. I am a mountain biker. I often talk to hunters in huts and we find we have a lot in common. These are people who are also passionate about back country recreation, and passionate about our natural heritage. But, fundamentally, this is not now a bill about them. It is a bill about and for the big-money trophy hunters. That is a very, very small and specific part of the hunting sector.

To make it worse, this Game Animal Council is going to be effectively competing for control of some of our conservation estate with the department, which has been depleted in money and depleted in capacity, and this council even now is going to be funded from Vote Conservation, weakening the department even further. So that balance that could have been struck has not been struck by this bill.

Today we have heard from the Hon Peter Dunne that he would be very surprised if the Game Animal Council sought to undermine 1080 use for pest control in the conservation estate. Damien O’Connor has told us that Garry Ottmann has told him no; he has given assurances that they will not do this. Well, please forgive my cynicism. I believe that the Game Animal Council will seek to undermine 1080 use for pest control in our back country. I believe it will do that because it is in its interest to do so, and that will be a very clear example of that conflict of interest.

This is a bill that successive Governments, in fact, have tried to avoid. It has come to the House today and is passing through its remaining stages under urgency because of the Government’s debt to Peter Dunne. It is a bad bill for conservation. It is a bad bill for our back country. It is actually a bad bill even for our recreational hunters—the everyday Kiwi recreational hunter. That is why it has been opposed by all of the Government departments that have been asked to comment on it and is also universally condemned by conservation organisations.

Even those organisations like the Deerstalkers Association, which has been calling for more say for many, many years, are going to find that this Game Animal Council is not for them at all. The Game Animal Council is no longer, under the amendments agreed to by the House today, even required to consult with the Deerstalkers Association. It is not a bill for that association. It is a bill for just that tiny part—the big-money, trophy-hunting part—which is essentially part of a commercial industry. It is a bad bill and one that we will oppose.

It is a rare thing for me take a call. I thought I might make my second maiden speech of the day on this particular bill, the Game Animal Council Bill, and sum up the bill.

This bill is really not about whether it was appropriate that between about 1840 and the First World War, a whole lot of game animals were released into New Zealand. I guess that in a way it is saying that they are here and they are part of the fabric of New Zealand, in the same way as other releases, like ryegrass, pine trees, Friesian cows, and racehorses, were all introduced into New Zealand. They are part of the fabric of New Zealand. What this bill does actually do is seek participation of stakeholders in decision making. Where anything that has been introduced into New Zealand is in the wrong place, or there is too much of it, it needs to be controlled. The bill brings these stakeholders into a position of that control.

This bill does not override conservation or environmental principles. It simply brings the stakeholder into the discussions about the best way that they can be made. One of the things about being chronologically challenged is that one sees arguments repeated several times. If one looks at stakeholder participation in something like the fishing industry’s quota management, it was going to be the end of the world, and the sky was going to fall in. What has happened is that we have a much more successful and better programme for managing our fish stocks.

This bill is actually a sensible bill. It acknowledges that 137,000-odd New Zealanders participate in hunting, and it gives them a voice so that we can get the right outcomes. I support the bill.